306 replies to this topic

[SportsGuy]

I cant remember what the topic was but recently someone said on here that this is the biggest threat to the sport.

To me, the biggest threat to the sport is Manfred and his dumbass ideas.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

One of the best things Bauer said in his video rant was stop changing the rules of the game and instead innovate to present the game and its players in a more appealing way.

[Mike B]

One of the best things Bauer said in his video rant was stop changing the rules of the game and instead innovate to present the game and its players in a more appealing way.

My son asked me if I thought, Manfred even liked baseball.  Good Question.

[Mike in STL]

I think I’ll be able to live with the three batter rule. It’s only going to apply to those guys that start an inning. Perhaps an amendment should be if the other team pinch hits you can then change pitchers to match.

My worry though is this is the start of a slippery slope where we start making much more radical changes.

[Mike in STL]

Now if we could just get DHs in the NL...

[Mackus]

I think I’ll be able to live with the three batter rule. It’s only going to apply to those guys that start an inning. 

 

No, it applies to everyone unless you finish an inning.

 

If a reliever comes, nobody else can pitch until they've either faced 3 batters OR the inning has ended. 

[Mike in STL]

No, it applies to everyone unless you finish an inning.

If a reliever comes, nobody else can pitch until they've either faced 3 batters OR the inning has ended.

That’s what I mean. If the starter goes 5.2 IP, another guy comes in and gets the 3rd out, he doesn’t have to face the first two batters of the next inning. They can bring in another guy to start the next inning. He goes 1-2-3, or if he doesn’t retire the side in order you still make a mid-inning pitching change after that third batter and someone else can. He’d have to finish the inning, or face three batters. There is no reason at all for more than two pitchers to appear in an inning. (Aside from the blowup scenario where you give up six hits and record no outs and go to a third guy to try). Half the time teams getting blown out will get their guys work in and pitch five guys in the 8th and 9th. Get your work in in the bullpen.

I think it’ll make teams strategize more when constructing lineups, and in bullpen management. It makes it harder while taking out something that slows the pace to a halt.

I think we might actually enjoy it, akin to power play in hockey if your team trails by one and the opposing pitcher has to pitch to an opposite handed batter and the pitchers splits are dreadful.

I’m for rule changes that make the game harder as the athleticism has gotten very much better over the years.

[Mike B]

No, it applies to everyone unless you finish an inning.

 

If a reliever comes, nobody else can pitch until they've either faced 3 batters OR the inning has ended. 

I have mixed feelings about this.  I have always felt like a pitcher should be able to handle more than one hitter, and the rule changers, say it is aimed at speeding up the game, but having a pitcher out there nibbling and pitching around hitters eats up time too.

 

I also have a problem, with guys like Manfred, who probably got cut from his T Ball team screwing with a game that has been great for over 100 years

[Mike B]

That’s what I mean. If the starter goes 5.2 IP, another guy comes in and gets the 3rd out, he doesn’t have to face the first two batters of the next inning. They can bring in another guy to start the next inning. He goes 1-2-3, or if he doesn’t retire the side in order you still make a mid-inning pitching change after that third batter and someone else can. He’d have to finish the inning, or face three batters. There is no reason at all for more than two pitchers to appear in an inning. (Aside from the blowup scenario where you give up six hits and record no outs and go to a third guy to try). Half the time teams getting blown out will get their guys work in and pitch five guys in the 8th and 9th. Get your work in in the bullpen.

I think it’ll make teams strategize more when constructing lineups, and in bullpen management. It makes it harder while taking out something that slows the pace to a halt.

I think we might actually enjoy it, akin to power play in hockey if your team trails by one and the opposing pitcher has to pitch to an opposite handed batter and the pitchers splits are dreadful.

I’m for rule changes that make the game harder as the athleticism has gotten very much better over the years.

The athleticism plays on both sides of the ball.

 

I think they are aiming to add more scoring to the game.  They screwed with the ball, got called on it, lied about it, so now, this change in particular is aimed at helping the hitters.

[Mike in STL]

The athleticism plays on both sides of the ball.

 

I think they are aiming to add more scoring to the game.  They screwed with the ball, got called on it, lied about it, so now, this change in particular is aimed at helping the hitters.

Time will tell how much this aids the hitters. Rather see an increase in balls in play from something like this rather than the juiced ball. 

 

Managers will really just have to know the splits of the opposing hitters better, see which lefties they can get away with leaving their righty in against and make that move to the pen accordingly. 

 

I hope this leads to an increase in starters innings pitched so managers won't want to play this shell game for five innings, rather one or two. To get there maybe means less nibbling the plate, more pounding the zone, more balls in play, quicker outs, not constantly being at 90-100 pitches through 4 or 5 IP where you force the managers hand. 

[Mike in STL]

We'll also have to see if the rule is even enforced. Baseball does a poor job at that. How many times have you seen a hitter called for stepping out too long, or pitcher called for the clock running out on them? It'll be the first time when it happens. 

 

I flipped out when they put a clock in the game and now it's something I don't even notice. It's still just bad aesthetically when you're at the game and you see it. But no one gets called on it. 

 

The review rules, the mound visit rules, they are bent and broken often. Give it two weeks until someone says they pulled something and doesn't face the minimum three and the umpire lets them. But then they pitch the next night no problem.

[TwentyThirtyFive]

Its just crazy that they implemented this before universal DH. Something that actually should have happened years ago. Im ok with the 3 batter rule earlier in games. Say through the 6th inning. From the 7th on managers should be allowed to matchup however they choose.

[SBTarheel]

Full disclosure, i have NOT read this thread, and I'm assuming there are some negative comments, so i apologize in advance if I'm wrong:

 

None of these rule changes are for people like us, who post on silly message boards about Baseball. They're trying to bring back casual, and bring in new fans. I personally don't care if the games go 100 innings and last 4 days, but they think these changes could speed up the games and make them more desirable for people to keep their attention spans for a few hours. 

 

Whether this works or not is yet to be proven, but none of these things are being done with longtime die hard fans in mind. They already have us.,

[You Play to Win the Game]

Why not try some new things out? The game needs to grow domestically, and the games are way too long (especially given there are 162 of them. I'm down trying some things out like this. 

[Mackus]

I'm ok with the 3-batter rule, but I think it's the wrong solution to the stated problem.  Could've solved that particular issue without changing game rules.

 

It's not that there is a new pitcher that takes a long time, it's that John Gibbons takes 3 minutes to walk 120 feet, talks for 30 seconds, points to the bullpen, the reliever then takes a minute to jog 300 feet, takes a minute to talk to the manager, and then takes 3 minutes to throw 8 warmup pitches. 

 

You ever see a batter walk up to the plate, the manager call time, walk out to the batters box and chat with the batter for a while, then point back to dugout, a new batter walks out, the batter and manager discuss the plan, and then take 20 practice swings in the box while everyone else just stands around? 

 

Just make pitching changes the same as pinch hitting and everything is fixed without changing a single thing about the way the game is played.  Don't change the game to fix a cosmetic issue.  If you wanna change the game that's fine, but change it for the purpose of improving the way the game is played.  Don't change it for exterior reasons if you don't have to.

[Mike B]

Its just crazy that they implemented this before universal DH. Something that actually should have happened years ago. Im ok with the 3 batter rule earlier in games. Say through the 6th inning. From the 7th on managers should be allowed to matchup however they choose.

Pretty much exactly how I feel.    I wonder if this is going to push teams back to the closer, instead of the committee closer that many are using.

The DH should have happened many years ago.  indefensible that it has not happened.  The unbalanced schedule needs to go too. 

[BobPhelan]

Why not try some new things out? The game needs to grow domestically, and the games are way too long (especially given there are 162 of them. I'm down trying some things out like this.

Agreed. I have no problem with tinkering with things to try to make it better, faster, more entertaining. It’s still baseball.

[DJ MC]

Why not try some new things out? The game needs to grow domestically, and the games are way too long (especially given there are 162 of them. I'm down trying some things out like this. 

 

How do these rules help?

[You Play to Win the Game]

How do these rules help?

We'll see. I'm skeptical honestly, but not trying things isn't an option. We'll see.

[DJ MC]

We'll see. I'm skeptical honestly, but not trying things isn't an option. We'll see.

 

I mean, if the "solutions" being tried aren't any good, then not trying things is most certainly not only an option, but possibly the best one.

 

This isn't an either/or thing, even though the Commissioner's Office would be thrilled for people to believe that.